QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009)

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing GPU, SSD
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Incomplete
Desktop
Desktop 0%
Incomplete
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Incomplete
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (49th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 51 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a relatively low single core score, this CPU can handle email, light web browsing and basic audio/video playback, but it will struggle to handle CPU intensive tasks. Finally, with a gaming score of 32.3%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Memory8GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's sufficient for the vast majority of games. 8GB is also enough for moderate file and system caches which result in a very responsive system.
OS VersionWindows 11 is the most recent version of Windows.
Very high background CPU (75%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
SystemQEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009)  (all builds)
Motherboard
Memory5.5 GB free of 8 GB @ 0 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 11
BIOS Date20230606
Uptime0 Days
Run DateOct 23 '23 at 16:28
Run Duration152 Seconds
Run User IND-User
Background CPU 75%

 PC Performing as expected (49th percentile)

Actual performance vs. expectations. The graphs show user score (x) vs user score frequency (y).

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Xeon E5-2696 v4
CPU 0, 1 CPU, 8 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 2.2 GHz, turbo 2.2 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (3rd percentile)
32.3% Below average
Memory 39.2
1-Core 38.5
2-Core 92.4
32% 56.7 Pts
4-Core 135
8-Core 411
30% 273 Pts
64-Core 586
36% 586 Pts
Poor: 35%
This bench: 32.3%
Great: 62%
Drive BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Red Hat VirtIO 107GB
68GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 0001
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 1,559
Write 1,064
Mixed 1,294
984% 1,306 MB/s
4K Read 24.6
4K Write 17.2
4K Mixed 19.4
3,499% 20.4 MB/s
DQ Read 252
DQ Write 287
DQ Mixed 214
2,125% 251 MB/s
Poor: 11% Great: 82%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
QEMU 1x8GB
1 of 1 slots used
8GB DIMM RAM
Performing way above expectations (95th percentile)
145% Outstanding
MC Read 75.1
MC Write 53
MC Mixed 57.4
177% 61.8 GB/s
SC Read 5.3
SC Write 7.9
SC Mixed 8.3
20% 7.17 GB/s
Latency 147
27% 147 ns
Poor: 30%
This bench: 145%
Great: 145%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

L1/L2/L3 CPU cache and main memory (DIMM) access latencies in nano seconds

 SkillBench Score 0: 0P 0R 0G 0B (High Scores)

Measures user input accuracy relative to the given hardware

Score Hit Rate Shots EFps 0.1% Low Refresh Rate Screen Resolution Monitor
0% 0% 0 11 5 0 0" 1280 720
Typical Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) Builds (Compare 611 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 83%
Aircraft carrier
Desktop
Desktop 73%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 74%
Battleship

System: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009)

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 60% - Good Total price: $485
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate countless reddit accounts. UserBenchmark’s data exposes their marketing spiel so they systematically attack our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands profit greatly from flagship hardware like the 4090, 14900KS, and 7950X3D. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Moreover, brands pay more to market weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated online reviews. It's obvious that the 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't interested in promoting billon-dollar brands...
Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?
Instead of pursuing lucrative sponsorships with billion-dollar PC brands, we have dedicated 13 years to publishing accurate real-world data. As a result, our users save millions every year and they return repeatedly.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260Nvidia RTX 4070 $550Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $29Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16
If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback